DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “with improved capacity characteristics and lifespan characteristics” in claim 1 lines 1 and 2is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “with improved capacity characteristics and lifespan characteristics” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the limitation is adding to the claim and what the claim is compared to, to yield the specific results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun (US 2014/0158932).
As to claim 1, Sun discloses a cathode active material with improved capacity characteristics and lifespan characteristics ([0008], discussed throughout), wherein the cathode active material comprises an aggregate of primary particles forming a secondary particle ([0008], figure 1, discussed throughout) and has an orientation from an inside of the secondary particle to an outside of the secondary particle (figure 1, [0051]-[0052], discussed throughout).
As to claim 2, Sun discloses wherein, the density gradually changes from the inside of the secondary particle to the outside of the secondary particle formed of the aggregate of the primary particles (figure 3, [0055], [0018], discussed throughout). Sun is silent to wherein the cathode active material has an orientation formed by firing a density gradient precursor. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production (see MPEP 2113).
As to claim 3, Sun discloses wherein, the primary particles have a plate-shaped, needle-shaped, or amorphous particle form (figure 1, needle shape; discussed throughout).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yun (US 2020/0119351).
As to claim 1, Yun discloses a cathode active material with improved capacity characteristics and lifespan characteristics ([0004]-[0006], discussed throughout), wherein the cathode active material comprises an aggregate of primary particles forming a secondary particle and has an orientation from an inside of the secondary particle to an outside of the secondary particle (figures 1A and 1B, [0034], discussed throughout).
As to claim 2, Yun discloses wherein, the density gradually changes from the inside of the secondary particle to the outside of the secondary particle formed of the aggregate of the primary particles ([0034], [0045], [0052], discussed throughout). Sun is silent to wherein the cathode active material has an orientation formed by firing a density gradient precursor. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production (see MPEP 2113).
As to claim 3, Yun discloses wherein, the primary particles have a plate-shaped, needle-shaped, or amorphous particle form ([0058], discussed throughout).
As to claim 4, Yun discloses wherein, the secondary particle has a specific surface area of 1 to 30 m2/g ([0059], discussed throughout) and an average particle diameter (D50) of 2 to 20 μm ([0029], [0056], discussed throughout).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2014/0158932) as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 5, Sun discloses wherein, the cathode active material is a lithium-nickel composite oxide represented by the following:
Lix[NiyCozMnwMv]O2;
where M is at least one selected from Ba, Ca, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb, and Mo; and 0.8<y<1, 0<z<0.8, 0<w<0.05, and 0≤v≤0.2 ([0029], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 2020/0119351) as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 5, Yun discloses wherein, the cathode active material is a lithium-nickel composite oxide represented by the following:
Lix[NiyCozMnwMv]O2;
where M is at least one selected from Ba, Ca, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb, and Mo; and 0.8<y<1, 0<z<0.8, 0<w<0.05, and 0≤v≤0.2 ([0080], discussed throughout). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 10-1593401B1 as cited within IDS sent on 5/25/2023, can be used for claims 1 and 3-5. Then can be modified with US 2006/0105239 paragraph [0056] for claim 2. This is just to expedite prosecution.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724